The government\u2019s plan to use artificial intelligence to accelerate planning for new homes may be about to hit an unexpected roadblock: AI-powered nimbyism.<\/p>\n
A new service called Objector<\/a> is offering \u201cpolicy-backed objections in minutes\u201d to people who are upset about planning applications near their homes.<\/p>\n It uses generative AI to scan planning applications and check for grounds for objection, ranking these as \u201chigh\u201d, \u201cmedium\u201d or \u201clow\u201d impact. It then automatically creates objection letters, AI-written speeches to deliver to the planning committees, and even AI-generated videos to \u201cinfluence councillors\u201d.<\/p>\n Kent residents Hannah and Paul George designed the system after estimating they spent hundreds of hours attempting to navigate the planning process when they opposed plans to convert a building near their home into a mosque.<\/p>\n For \u00a345-a-time, they are offering the tool to people who, like them, could not afford a specialist lawyer to help navigate labyrinthine planning laws. They said it would help \u201ceveryone have a voice, to level the playing field and make the whole process fairer\u201d.<\/p>\n It is a modest enterprise but it is not alone. A similar service, Planningobjection.com, is promoting \u00a399 AI-generated objection letters with the tagline \u201cstop moaning and take action\u201d.<\/p>\n Community campaigners have also encouraged supporters to use ChatGPT to craft objection letters<\/a> on Facebook, claiming it is like having \u201ca planning solicitor at your fingertips\u201d.<\/p>\n One leading planning lawyer warned such AIs could \u201csupercharge nimbyism\u201d and if they became widely used could cause the planning system to \u201cgrind to a halt\u201d, with planning officials potentially deluged with submissions.<\/p>\n Sebastian Charles said his firm, Aardvark Planning Law, had seen AI-generated objections to planning applications that included references to previous cases and appeal decisions that, when checked by a human lawyer, did not exist.<\/p>\n \u201cThe danger is decisions are made on the wrong basis,\u201d he said. \u201cElected members making final decisions could easily believe AI-generated planning speeches made by members of the public, even if they are full of made up case law and regulations.\u201d<\/p>\n Hannah George, a co-founder of Objector, denied the platform was about automating nimbyism.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s just about making the planning system fair,\u201d she said. \u201cAt the moment, from our experience, it\u2019s not. And with the government on this \u2018build, baby, build\u2019 mission, we see that only going one way.\u201d<\/p>\n Objector has said while AI-created errors are a concern, it uses two different AI models and cross-checks the results in an effort to reduce the risk of \u201challucinations\u201d \u2013 a term used to describe when AIs make things up.<\/p>\n The current Objector system is designed to tackle small planning applications, for example, repurposing a local office building or a neighbour\u2019s home extension. A capability to challenge much larger applications, such as a housing estate on greenbelt land, is in development, said George.<\/p>\n The Labour government has been promoting AI as one solution to clearing planning backlogs. It recently launched a tool called Extract<\/a>, which aims to speed up planning processes and help the government carry out its mission to build 1.5m new homes.<\/p>\n But there may be an AI \u201carms race\u201d developing, said John Myers, the director of the Yimby Alliance, a campaign calling for more homes to be built with the support of local communities.<\/p>\n \u201cThis will turbocharge objections to planning applications and will lead to people finding obscure reasons [for opposing developments] that they have not found before,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n A new dynamic could emerge \u201cwhere one side tries to deploy AI to accelerate the process, and the other side deploys AI to stop it,\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t see an end to that until we find a way to bring forward developments people want.\u201d<\/p>\n